Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Another vs Baldev Singh Gill on 1 March, 2012
RSA No.3788 of 1997 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3788 of 1997
Date of Decision : 1.3.2012
State of Punjab and another
..Appellants.
Vs.
Baldev Singh Gill
..Respondent.
AND
RSA No.2138 of 1999
Date of Decision : 1.3.2012
Mohinder Pal, Ex Forest Guard
..Appellant.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the appellant in RSA No.3788 of
1997.
Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent in RSA No.3788 of
1997.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the appellant in RSA No.2138
of 1999.
Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for the respondent in RSA No.2138
of 1999.
***
1. Whether Reports of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
AJAY TEWARI J.(Oral)
By this judgment, I will dispose of both these appeals because RSA No.3788 of 1997 -2- they both arise from the same incident. In one case, the dismissal order has been set aside by both the Courts below. However, in the other case, the trial court has set aside the order but lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
The facts have been taken from RSA No.3788 of 1997 titled as State of Punjab and another Vs. Baldev Singh Gill. Both the Courts found that domestic enquiry which preceded the order of dismissal was fraught with illegalities. It was held that neither the complaint was supplied to the delinquent despite his request nor was he allowed to inspect the record. When this appeal was filed no question of law was proposed. Today learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has proposed the following question of law:
(i)Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that principles of natural justice were violated while holding the enquiry against the respondent.
In this connection, he has referred to the findings of the lower Appellate Court wherein in the connected appeal the lower Appellate Court held that even though original documents were not supplied to the delinquent yet thereafter specific opportunity was granted to inspect the record. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant in that case has argued that this finding is based only on a letter written but inspite of it there is no proof of delivery, and after this letter, the employee had again represented that he was neither being shown the record nor given copies. As regards the enquiry report in the case of Mohinder Pal, appellant, the trial Court found as a fact that enquiry officer had admitted that copy of the RSA No.3788 of 1997 -3- enquiry report had not been supplied to the appellant and the learned lower Appellate Court held that the enquiry report was supplied in the face of contrary positive evidence by misreading and saying that this fact was not denied in the replication whereas in the replication it was specifically denied. Resultantly, it has to be held that domestic enquiry was vitiated.
In normal circumstances in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (1996) 9 SCC 322 if the enquiry is set aside, the matter has to be referred back to the enquiry officer for denovo enquiry form the date the error took place. However, in the present case the Court is faced with a very piquant situation. Baldev Singh who was to retire in 1998, has died in the year 2004, thus no enquiry can now be held against him. The other, Mohinder Pal still has left approximately one and half years to go. Moreover, learned counsel has argued that it was Baldev Singh who was the superior Officer being Deputy Ranger while Mohinder Pal was just a Forest guard and since no enquiry can now be held against Baldev Singh, it would not be in the interest of justice that any enquiry is held against Mohinder Pal also. In my opinion, this argument cannot be brushed aside. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that main responsibility would have to be on the shoulders of superior Officer i.e. Deputy Ranger and if no action can be taken against him it would be in the interest of justice not to take action against subordinate officer i.e. Mohinder Pal, who was just Forest Guard. In conclusion RSA No.3788 of 1997 titled as State of Punjab and another Vs. Baldev Singh Gill is dismissed whereas RSA No.2138 of 1999 titled as Mohinder Pal Vs., State of Punjab is allowed. Judgments of both the Courts RSA No.3788 of 1997 -4- below are set aside and the suit of Mohinder Pal is decreed. As regards consequential benefits it is directed that the employees will be treated to be in service with all consequential benefits except for the period they were out of job illegally for which they would be paid only 50% of back wages.
( Ajay Tewari ) Judge 1.3.2012 Meenu